Description of FR metrics is incorrect
FR metrics do not necessarily perform a pixelwise comparison of the images. Instead, some metrics may perform filtering of the images before comparing them. Also, they may compare only subregions or downscaled (=averaged)regions of the images. It also happens, that some metrics extract one value(e.g. jerkiness) from the reference video, extract the same value from the degraded video and then compare these two somehow averaged values. In this case no imagewise comparison would happen at all. I am still thinking about a good text to correct this. If somebody has a good idea how to phrase it, go ahead... Grizzly007 15:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Only a minor thing. Shouldn't the link to ITU say ITU-R instead of ITU-T?
- Would someone preferably with professional knowledge evaluate and answer this question.1archie99 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's needed. I fixed the references Soulhack (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I deleted the 'further reading' link to the Opticom home page this morning, assuming it was advertising spam. As it has been re-added, I assume there is a good reason for linking directly to it. Maybe it would be a good idea to explain that reason, before I re-delete it? GyroMagician (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Would not recommend linking to proprietary implementations when a standard is available. Soulhack (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone added a very biased section on LIVE databases and no-reference models developed by researchers at the LIVE group. These models were included in an existing well-known and accepted classification of models, making it appear like they formed a completely new set of models, which is not true, since they are also simply pixel-based. They should be included as examples only, in the section below, and should be phrased less promotional. – Soulhack (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Video quality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070613082813/http://www.genista.com:80/management.htm to http://www.genista.com/management.htm
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100531073341/http://broadcastengineering.com:80/test_measurement/quality-control-0210/index2.html to http://broadcastengineering.com/test_measurement/quality-control-0210/index2.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090215014910/http://www.atis.org:80/iif/ to http://www.atis.org/iif/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.